Krugman Called Out

Volokh demolishes Krugman:

"Rhetorically, the column is also a bit unhinged.  Krugman writes that any judge who adopts a traditional textualist approach to interpretation and thus sides with the plaintiffs is “corrupt.” So Judge Thomas Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who when nominated was praised for his fair-mindedness and moderate temperament by folks on both sides of the aisle, is tarred with this brush because he found the plaintiffs arguments convincing and wrote the D.C. Circuit’s Halbig opinion. Never mind that he applied the same interpretive method he had used in prior cases. In Sierra Club v. EPA, for instance, Griffith ruled against the Bush EPA because it failed to adhere to the text of the Clean Air Act.  In Sierra Club, as in many statutory cases, one word (“each”) made all the difference.

Krugman’s column illustrates contemporary punditry can distort what is actually a serious legal debate (much like how some conservative commentary distorts the serious arguments in favor of the president’s authority to act unilaterally on immigration).  The arguments that make for good op-eds don’t necessarily make for good legal advocacy.  If Krugman wants to actually advance his side’s argument (rather than just vent his spleen), he should really read the Ziff post above and take legal argument seriously. Alternatively, he could stick to subjects upon which he’s actually an expert."

Krugman doesn't take nearly enough tongue and word lashing he so richly deserves.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.